Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[bitsko]

Interoperability isn't about improving the BSV protocol per se, to me its about allowing separate vested groups to have something in common again technically, particularly since there is an irreparable ideological divide.

It can be beneficial for all parties, improving reach.

Post automatically merged: Jun 1, 2021

How would interoperability work? Could a fast moving dev chain form a bridge between them? We could certainly allow pretty invisible cross chain atomic swaps, or tokenize BCH and BSV into this experimental chain. Trusted tokens (backed by value stored in some multisig address that could be verified for 100% backing but of course the signers could conspire to steal the tokens) could happen very quickly, but the untrusted algorithms to create stable coins like constant-product-market-makers are more complex so a time frame couldn't be stated now.

to me, being able to avoid a centralized exchange to get to and from BCH would be valuable!

I consider what is happening with smartBCH to ultimately bring a great amount of value to/through BCH.

All the routes that can be built to swap or do functions at lower cost are likely to be a boon imo.

Most people don't see the value in say, inter-operating with something like dogecoin, but to me, its a user bridge...

users coming across the bridge translates into more upward price action which translates into increased interest in development-- is how I see it.

Post automatically merged: Jun 1, 2021

I listened to the interview with the fabriik CEO yesterday....

Perhaps calvin ayre didn't understand and led to a perception that fabriik would exist 'on bsv' chain.

or perhaps, just like cryptofights spending a year in ancestor hell, they realized that building on bsv was not only illogical from a regulatory perspective as an exchange, but it was technically infeasible and a horrible user experience.

The notion that 'bsv doesn't need anything else' is laughable at best... its a low cap shitcoin with an un-likeable autist dictator at the helm causing it severe brain drain get over yourself.

Post automatically merged: Jun 1, 2021

While all the BSV maximalists will be seething at expanded BSV pairs, fabriik will be bringing real value into the bsv ecosystem by ignoring the garbage maximalism that has led to the stagnation of BSV.

(if they don't cut and run like drivemarkets after seeing such poor revenues)

 

[bitsko]

something else, unrelated;

It looks like the method by which CSW will use BSV as an example for how to give him coins on BTC will be to first inflate the supply of BSV, granting himself coins out of 'thin air' and then to 'burn' the coins for which he does not have the private key.

So, its not just breaking the chain of digital signatures, but violating the issuance as well, and only on BSV. lol gross.

 

[freetrader]

All the routes that can be built to swap or do functions at lower cost are likely to be a boon imo.

All of this will already be possible using the Smart BCH sidechain with its much more powerful smart contract facilities.

This new coin is not needed for that.

 

[bitsko]

Why would it be a problem for anyone to do as they feel on any project they like in order to attempt to realize the goal of global p2p cash

 

[cbeast]

Interoperability isn't about improving the BSV protocol per se, to me its about allowing separate vested groups to have something in common again technically, particularly since there is an irreparable ideological divide.

It can be beneficial for all parties, improving reach.

CSW tried to compromise. He tried agreements. The other forks are dishonorable.

 

[bitsko]

He said a bunch of absurd bullshit along with pursuing what I think is the best protocol approach.

 

[freetrader]

> CSW tried to compromise. He tried agreements. The other forks are dishonorable.

BCH is permissionless. If it has something to honor, it is a social contract as "p2p electronic cash" with its users.

BSV is a no-longer-open source project, any business with a brain can figure that out, if not immediately (hint: the special license), then over time, or when they get hit by copyright or patent trolling lawsuits.

FTFY

 

[Zarathustra]

Open source projects cannot live beyond copyright.
Any business with a brain can figure that out, if not immediately, then over time, or when they get hit by copyright or patent lawsuits.

 

[freetrader]

You're not getting the point here, @Zarathustra, as usual.

It's not about "living beyond copyright".

It's about really being open source. Not at risk of capture, or indeed, captured already.

The Bitcoin Cash code source is open like that. Permissive licenses, permissive environment.
We keep it that way.

 

[cbeast]

Which BCH is open source? All of them you say? I think that's the point. If you believe Bitcoin needed improvements in 2009, then you were the problem. Bug fixes, fine, but beyond that copyright protects the original code. Locked in stone, by copyright, by miner incentives, and by use case patents. Bitcoin Cash will probably not stand up to legal challenges, let alone technical. As a hobby project, it's probably safe, but I doubt BCH will be considered a legal project to financialize for much longer.

 

[79b79aa8]

aww freetrader thank you for being so open and permissive -- and keeping it that way! i am sure the BCH developer crowd loves it!

but above all, thank you for being so free! you are a paragon, an example and a guide to those yet incapable of understanding the full glory of freedom -- and the natural, concomitant superiority of BCH, the enencumbered coin, the unpatented coin, the free coin, the coin of freedom.

 

[bitsko]

> CSW tried to compromise. He tried agreements. The other forks are dishonorable.

BCH is permissionless. If it has something to honor, it is a social contract as "p2p electronic cash" with its users.

BSV is a no-longer-open source project, any business with a brain can figure that out, if not immediately (hint: the special license), then over time, or when they get hit by copyright or patent trolling lawsuits.

FTFY

they publish the code source openly?

they even send a copy to github.

you dont have to use bsv licence to release on bsv you can use a more favorable licence

Post automatically merged: Jun 2, 2021

A BSV project getting sued by cringetoshi in the future will be a mark of success and innovation for those being sued.

I did jokingly predict that if Jack Liu succeeds in his efforts he'll get sued by CSW

Post automatically merged: Jun 2, 2021

Which BCH is open source? All of them you say? I think that's the point. If you believe Bitcoin needed improvements in 2009, then you were the problem. Bug fixes, fine, but beyond that copyright protects the original code. Locked in stone, by copyright, by miner incentives, and by use case patents. Bitcoin Cash will probably not stand up to legal challenges, let alone technical. As a hobby project, it's probably safe, but I doubt BCH will be considered a legal project to financialize for much longer.

BSV holds less legitimacy in being 'considered a legal project to financialize'

BCH has grayscale, and other interests, BSV has drivemarkets, oh wait they shut down.

bsv has buybsv.com lmao

Post automatically merged: Jun 2, 2021

im serious go try to use buybsv.com hahaha

 

[bitsko]

@cbeast ; when csw said hed roll his assbergs and segflaw, and then later he now likes the price of btc and he said people have life savings in btc - thats because of grayscale lending legitimacy.

this apparently is the guy people are afraid of/ in awe of.

hes a dork for his lawl pron, fuck him, and youre a dork too if you promote lawl doom coming

Post automatically merged: Jun 2, 2021

@freetrader dont get me wrong im not implying you should release anything on bsv.

i am stating a fact about your rights, in that they arent bound by the fork of a fork licensing scheme for the 'real bitcoin' that 'already won'.

Post automatically merged: Jun 2, 2021

lol

 

[bitsko]

From a github repository created to implement ecies bie on bsv:

"I'm a supporter of BSV, but you are free to use it on BTC/BCH etc.

License
BSD-2-Clause"

If ever I produced something of value to bitcoiners (its a stretch I know, but im trying to make a point)
then that code would be open to use on any blockchain, if it could be made to work on such blockchain. I dont give a shit about bsv license except that its funny how they require a certain hash at a certain blockheight while some dickheads claim bsv follows the whitepaper.

If you read the conclusion of the whitepaper about how the consensus mechanism works and then go look in the real world at what the bsv miners are doing, theyre playing the bitcoin consensus game on the BTC chain by and large, which has the longest chain (which is long in the sense of work, dont try and redefine long ffs)

 

[Zarathustra]

aww freetrader thank you for being so open and permissive -- and keeping it that way! i am sure the BCH developer crowd loves it!

but above all, thank you for being so free! you are a paragon, an example and a guide to those yet incapable of understanding the full glory of freedom -- and the natural, concomitant superiority of BCH, the enencumbered coin, the unpatented coin, the free coin, the coin of freedom.

Perhaps the most open and permissive of all masked and hidden developers ever ....

 

[bitsko]

Freetrader is alright its just that his politics get him to want to make up bullshit about licensing and try to control BU to serve BCH only.

Both of which run contrary to the noble goal of bringing peer to peer cash to the world.

 

[bitsko]

#36 is already #1

 

[theZerg]

Well, I think there are still a few BU members here. It ought to be said that BUIP166 will allow BU to explore a more inclusive vision of a blockchain. I hope that even if you are on the BSV side of things, you take the time to vote, and vote YES to give me the opportunity to try this. This will let BU realize its full potential, which BCH (and BSV) can leverage (with our help) or not, as they see fit.

From the perspective of our organization, there can be no doubt that the BUIP activity has slowed to a crawl, and consequentially the value of BU as an organization is falling, because the real gatekeepers are the CHIP process (and although BU is in name part of the CHIP process, we aren't the roadblocks because we say YES to innovation). The CHIP process is at best loosely defined but clearly ends in the same hash war that has fucked the community 2-3 times now (https://gitlab.com/im_uname/cash-improvement-proposals/-/blob/master/CHIPs.md#dispute-resolution).

I think I and we can do better by the simple philosophy of saying YES to ideas rather than no. I know it sounds too simple, but I personally watched nChain and CSW's positions harden against certain features, primarily because their own priorities were not being met. It makes sense. I also didn't care if ABC wanted to waste time with CTOR (and other stuff) so long as Group Tokens got in. But when Group Tokens was eliminated, I had to ask "for what?", and the answer was "for nothing useful".

I hope you'll take the time to vote at least one more time, and then join me in exploring all that can be done!

oh last thing voting page is here: https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/voting/form/cast-proposal-ballot/cdf37599ae7ec38885cd0acff4e6532c8e84923b593f963bd2d0f7025d0c23de

 

[bitsko]

Post automatically merged: Jun 4, 2021

quite frankly, I listened pretty close to what 'money skeletor' had to say, and to be honest, I have been critical of the same sorts of outlandish claims, as I find them unhelpful.

lets say you get the attention of a CEO based on half truths and false claims, and they look into it. they still decide it wont work, because the basis for their interest was not founded in reality, but in outlandish claims of future performance


for a project that eschewed 'communal' interaction largely or avoids intentionally to create a 'culture' of use --- and as such looks towards adoption by large entities for its future volume, its probably not the best idea to falsely advertise potential

you can see its easy for someone with a heavy bias such as vitalik, if ever getting past outright dismissal of BSV on account of the questionable and fraudulent public behavior of CSW (sleight of hand sartre signing, claims to move early block, etc) - they can get right into these bullshit performance claims, and its easy enough to keep dismissing BSV.

when you say '50,000' transactions per second, and its for one second; thats the sort of bullshit that makes bsv look full of shit. BSV has around 3 transactions per second, stop lying.

when you say (of course lol) 'bsv already won' - lol

when you tell me bsv never really hits a scale ceiling while im hitting a scale ceiling, why its that sort of shit that is garbage.

when you say 'bsv has the longest chain' - you're a piece of shit for that lol

basically check calvin's tweets and if that is your narrative you're fucking bsv harder than any other group's perspective could ever.

Post automatically merged: Jun 4, 2021

also, vitaliks view of bsv has improved by 20% over three years, at this rate, I predict 80% support by the time eth2 is released.

BSV will still have already won, but it will probably be something like #80 on the charts(and number one in our hearts)

 

[AdrianX]

@theZerg I was going to let my membersig defalt, after BUIP141 was rejected, but it looks like my membership expires next week and given your plee, I'll cast a vote, the motivation is the irational objections are mostly anonimoous.